Re: About the Mandatory constraints

On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 7:34 AM, Stefan Håkansson LK <
stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com> wrote:

> Just to be clear: I think we have debated the mandatory constraints for
> gUM several times, and we always come back to the same conclusion:
> people want them. One use is when the app developer wants to avoid
> disturbing the user, or even indicate e.g. that video communication is
> possible, if the equipment does not fulfill the requirements the app
> developer has.
>

That's a good point which I had overlooked; thank you for correcting me.

That gUM needs mandatory constraints but MediaRecorder does not actually
strengthens my case that they should not share Constraints machinery, IMHO.

Given that gUM should have some form of mandatory constraints, we could
easily add them without the abstract Constrainable machinery. The details
of how we add them are relatively inconsequential, but for example, we
could have a GetUserMediaOptions dictionary representing a single
constraint set and have a GetUserMediaOptionsCollection dictionary that
provides the 'optional'/'mandatory' syntax currently required by
Constraints. [Personally I suggest lighter-weight syntax that allows a
single sequence of GetUserMediaOptions, but gives GetUserMediaOptions a
'mandatory' boolean member to make that set of options mandatory.
('mandatory' would only be honoured on the first element of the list.).]

Rob
-- 
Jtehsauts  tshaei dS,o n" Wohfy  Mdaon  yhoaus  eanuttehrotraiitny  eovni
le atrhtohu gthot sf oirng iyvoeu rs ihnesa.r"t sS?o  Whhei csha iids  teoa
stiheer :p atroa lsyazye,d  'mYaonu,r  "sGients  uapr,e  tfaokreg iyvoeunr,
'm aotr  atnod  sgaoy ,h o'mGee.t"  uTph eann dt hwea lmka'n?  gBoutt  uIp
waanndt  wyeonut  thoo mken.o w